Patna High Court
Pati Devi @ Mahapti Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 4 February, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1079 of 2024
======================================================
Pati Devi @ Mahapti Devi Wife of Umrao Yadav @ Tusri Yadav, Resident of
village- Nakatpura Kashochak, P.S. - Bihar, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Cum Collector, Nalanda.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Nalanda.
4. The Circle Officer, Biharsharif, Nalanda.
5. The S.H.O. Bihar, Nalanda.
6. Sadasiv Sadabahar, S/o Late Rajesh Prasad, Resident of village- Bagnabad,
Twon, P.S. Bihar, District - Nalanda, at present resident of below the
Ranipur Khirkee tal, P.S - Mehdiganj, District- Patna.
7. Radhe Shaym Yadav, Son of Late Pragash Yadav, Resident of village-
Gauragarh, P.S. - Bihar, District- Nalanda.
8. Seeta Ram Yadav, Son of Late Pragash Yadav, Resident of village-
Gauragarh, P.S. - Bihar, District- Nalanda.
9. Laro Yadav, Son of Late Pragash Yadav, Resident of village- Gauragarh, P.S.
- Bihar, District- Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bishwa Bijay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mahtab Alam, AC to SC-20
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-02-2025
Record has been taken up on mentioning being made
on behalf of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by a number of orders
passed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court. The
petitioner is plaintiff of Title Suit No. 46 of 2013 in which
learned Sub Judge-VI, Biharsharif, Nalanda passed an order
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1079 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
dated 23.03.2022 on the petition of respondent no. 6 seeking
directions against the plaintiff for maintaining the suit property
in its previous form. The said application was allowed and
against the order of learned Sub Judge-VI, Biharsharif, Nalanda
dated 23.03.2022, the plaintiff preferred Misc. Appeal No. 02 of
2022 and the said appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the learned trial court by
moving an application dated 20.05.2024 filed under Order 39,
Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
and another petition dated 29.05.2024 and both the petitions
came to be rejected by the learned trial court. The petitioner has
now approached this Court against the aforesaid orders.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
orders are not sustainable as the learned trial court has not
considered the facts and circumstances of the case before it.
Learned trial court has not considered the fact that the
respondent no. 6 is trying to change the nature of the suit
property and not the plaintiff/petitioner. Learned counsel further
submits that respondent no. 6 has been trying to erect boundary
wall over the suit property.
5. Perused the record.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1079 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
6. From bare perusal of the record, I find that the
petitioner is aggrieved more by the acts of respondent no. 6 as
the plaintiff/petitioner claims that the respondent no. 6 has been
constructing boundary wall over the suit land and the petitioner
is hardly aggrieved by the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by
learned Sub Judge-VI, Biharsharif, Nalanda in Title Suit No. 46
of 2013 and order dated 25.04.2022 passed in Misc. Appeal No.
02 of 2022 by learned District Judge, Biharsharif, Nalanda.
Since it appears that the orders have been complied with the
help of District Magistrate, Biharsharif, Nalanda which was
against the plaintiff for removal of statute of her husband and
digging his burial place which has been made over the disputed
property.
7. If the plaintiff is aggrieved by the acts of
respondent no. 6 for constructing boundary wall over the suit
property, the option is open to the plaintiff to approach learned
trial court seeking appropriate remedy for redressal of her
grievance. The applications dated 29.05.2024 and 03.06.2024
have not been brought on record but from the order sheet of the
learned trial court it appears that these applications were filed
for compliance of order dated 23.03.2022. If the applications
dated 29.05.2024 and 03.06.2024 are taken to be applications
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1079 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
filed for injunction, the remedy against rejection of such
applications would lie in filing appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r)
of the Code of Civil Procedure and not in approaching this
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Moreover,
all the impugned orders are reasoned and speaking orders and
this Court would not like to interfere with any of the orders.
8. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances,
I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is
dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 06.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
